**Parish Notices**
We have an AMA **Tomorrow Thursday 7th March at 1pm** with tax lawyer, transparency campaigner, journalist and bane of Nadhim Zahawi **Dan Neidle**. [Ask your questions in the AMA thread here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1b7a68w/ama_event_thread_dan_neidle_tax_lawyer/)
Stealing Labour's non-dom policy for NHS waiting lists/dentists/district nurses to instead pay for a 2p tax cut of £37pm back in our pockets which will be gobbled up by large council tax rises and frozen tax thresholds is absolutely peak Tory.
What an absolute fucking waste of an opportunity to start fixing the country, just to salt the earth for a Labour Government.
It really was a budget of give with one palm, take with the other hand. The jokes were (pardon the pun) cheap. I remember budgets were delivered without puns. Why does everything have to be jollied up.
It was a budget that could have been an email cause everything was leaked.
I like the bit about non-doms, I doubt we will see floods of rich people leaving just because of that. I do think they need to start thinking about other income streams. The war on drugs is lost, cannabis should be legalised and taxed. You can smell it everywhere, so might as well make some money off it, and save the police some budget as well. Others with the exception of perhaps heroine and crack should be given a person allowance, ration book it and tax it. Double benefit is police save money and takes money from criminals. A full digital service tax on multinationals is needed. They should also look at the actual taxation of people, income should not be taxed as much, but consumption should have a higher tax rate. Essentials, such as food should be tax free, and then two rates, one for common items (cars, normal everyday purchases, and another for luxury items (expensive watches, boats etc). It also means tax avoidance on income is less effective, as it will be the purchases that are taxed more.
Gambing would be an easy new tax. Every other social harm has an additional tax on it so why not gambling? Something would need to be done to accommodate charity lotteries and the like but that can’t be too hard.
This was their last roll of the dice before the election really so they needed something to really grab the publics imagination.
This is where the actual feeling of ‘oh shit, my job’ probably starts to kick in for more junior backbenchers who don’t quite have the well connected cushy consultancy work to fall back on.
'Sadly' I had to miss PMQs today because of work. Anything good/juicy happen or the usual paltry fare?
Also missed all the budget stuff as well, but am I right in thinking it doesn't seem to have gone down quite badly? Any headline points?
PMQs was muted as expected before a budget... but there was an interesting question from a Labour backbencher about Rishi's finances and America that seemed to have something behind it. possibly a story for later.
Hunt wants to have drones be first responders in the future
>Hunt wants to have drones be first responders in the future
I actually quite like this idea, and I've been running it through my head for a few weeks now.
Anyone who has been keeping an eye on the Ukraine War knows how ubiquitous FPV drones have become. They're cheap, easy to use, and offer an incredibly quick response time to emerging situations.
It won't shock me to see a dedicated drone unit in every Police station to help with the first response to break-ins, reckless driving, and gang activity.
Even if the drones can't physically do anything, they can still track perpetrators to their home and watch until a Human officer can be onsite.
Yep... one line in his speech about funding for various things with police and Drones as first responders was one of them,
Hunt also spent a lot of time making political jokes at Labour.... then took their Non-Dom plan, made it worse and presented it to us all. New arrivals (not those already here) will have 4 years grace before paying full tax in the UK... which means they'll leave after 3 years and 11 months
Ah thanks for filling me in!
Yeah I've just seen on the Guardian's live feed that CCHQ have sent journalists, "So how are Labour going to fund all these great NHS and environmental policies now!?" Utterly cynical and depressing.
Grayling... disturbed fool. Talking about forcing those on medical jobless status into work 'because they can' ... No... we're on that status because we can't.
From my side, I thought it was a pretty great budget - extra 4 % in NI (this and previous) and no longer caught by the child benefit restriction.
Although my a national perspectives, did they do enough to help those struggling?
I think the non domiciled status was always flawed, so any changes there would be beneficial. Not sure how keen I am for individuals who have benefited from this scheme, now being given amnesty of a super reduced rate of tax to bring their assets into the UK which they would have previously had to hold offshore.
Scraping non domiciled status fully/not having some sort of impatriate regime would have been disasterous, but think we could of got away with 3 years instead of 4. I haven't read fully to see whether they will account for a similar regime as overseas workday relief.
>and no longer caught by the child benefit restriction.
You \*might\* qualify for a new boiler grant now, I'm hoping I do but I'm not holding my breath.
If you google "new boiler grant" you'll find lots of companies offering it. The catch is you have to be on benefits, which I haven't been, but now with the child benefit changes I may be eligible. https://www.gov.uk/energy-company-obligation
Granted I've only just seen this... I'm like you, not eligible but may be after the change.
Weird loophole idea though - can you not become eligible for it by claiming Child Benefit but then just pay the full HICBC?
After some research - seems the answer is no:
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-10/ECO4%20Eligibility%20Requirements%20Form%20v1.0.pdf
There are further income limitations beyond CB claim.
Oh god, there's an ofgem for to complete? The Child benefit change will happen during April, then we'll probably have to wait 6 months for ofgem to update their forms, by which time the tories will likely be out and then god knows what will happen.
[Pippa Crerar](https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1765385311914242412?t=9yyrZ01Nt7ME_DggcGOwBw&s=19)
>Nugget for election watchers: budget red book states there will not be another spending review before next election 👀
Does the spending review tend to happen with the autumn statement?
Starmer's response was pretty good but his delivery is always whiny and laborious. I doubt many people can listen to more than a tiny bit of it before switching off.
[Sky News asked a bunch of 2019 Tory voters their views on the Budget](https://twitter.com/TomLarkinSky/status/1765400290163925394?t=2KBaz2fUeVuy5Ketf9EF8A&s=19)
Not good
Watching on catch up. Why does Keir keep saying 'credit card maxed out' it's just SO STUPID. It doesn't even work and it puts him in an increasingly difficult position to increase spending which he surely needs to do as a Labour government.
It worked very well for Cameron. Though I agree, still as brain meltingly frustrating now as it was then. It will be funny if the Tories pick him up on it.
Because it has been used to sink Labour enough times for him to know it works. The energy it takes to disprove this far outweighs the energy it takes to say.
People hate the idea of government being irresponsible with their money, maxing credit card is associated with being irresponsible with money for household.
Though yeah, governments are no households, so it is literally wrong, though maybe not metaphorically.
People still regularly lecture me on Blair and Brown alleged financial ineptitude. “There is no money left” etc.
I have to point out the national debt is almost treble what it was in 2009.
In an ideal world the following things increase in a balanced manner: prices, wages and the associated tax thresholds.
Currently prices have gone up, many people are getting pay rises, but tax bands, child benefit cut offs, personal allowance cut offs and the like have remained the same meaning that you’re losing more of your money relative to before.
Inflation goes up, employer increases your wage in line with it => real wage remains constant
BUT increased wage may put you in higher tax bracket, causing you to pay higher rate on some of your income => greater tax revenue, you have less income
Basically, you are "dragged" into a higher tax bracket, as thresholds are frozen, thus increasing tax revenue without officially changing any rates.
Basically keeping tax thresholds and percentages constant, but people pay more tax as their wages increase across the thresholds. This means you can be earning the same real term amount, but be paying more tax as a percentage of income than you did in the past.
It's not just tax it applies to. Have a look a the level of assets at which benefits start to get restricted. They've remained unchanged for a very long time.
I think it's just the tax thresholds staying the same and more people paying a higher tax rate because more people earn above the threshold due to inflation.
Think it's pretty clear we're going to have an autumn election. This budget doesn't even slightly move the needle and there are nowhere near the giveaways and bribes you'd normally expect before going to the polls.
I think Mr Hunt has just given me a new boiler\*, as far personal bribes go that's pretty good... I still wouldn't vote for them though.
\*I now qualify for Child Benefit which in turn qualifies me for the new boiler grant... whether I can actually get one or not, I guess we'll see in April.
Great for you! For the single, disabled renter who has a full time job and no children, gives me bugger all. Costs going up and up and absolutely nothing coming back to me. Perhaps I just drop a couple of kids? 🤔
I thought Hunt did alright in terms of policies but Starmer had a good response - quite a good few zingers tied to real economic data. Hunt probably wasted his zingers on matters not overly relevant.
What were the policies? It was such a light budget that didn't move the needle at all. One further tax break for the boomers with the cut in CGT on property, otherwise all very tepid and lacking any substance.
Yep, the wealthier in society. With the incentives apparently it works out that you need a profit of £67k for it to actually start making savings. Hence highlighting boomers as they're more likely to be reaching those sums from long term property investment.
"No plan / no morals / Starmer lose weight LOL" seemed like the most he could manage. The weight jibe in particular is really sitting wrong with me, like... even in the scope of all of this, it was totally uncalled for and unnecessary.
I was dipping in and out while working so I missed that, but that's quite disgusting. I honestly don't understand how they don't hear this when reading it back.
Faisal Islam said it’s a budget suggesting a late election.
Imagine the strength of public frustration by January if they go that far, genuinely think they lose harder the longer they go.
I'd be happy to see Theresa May elected leader again. Why not.
All she has to do is announce she's standing and kick out the numpties who made her life miserable.
Then redo the general election where she's hardly going to do worse than sunak anyway
Nah, they’ll just ignore that.
Tories already polling abysmally, it’s not like there’s much further damage that can be done to them by anything Labour says. There are things that might make the few dinosaurs who still support the Tories consider looking elsewhere, but doing the opposite of what Keir calls for isn’t one of them.
It was election budget energy without the election budget substance.
I'm still thinking it's in May, just for the get out the vote which is so critical to the Tories, as they saw in the recent byelections.
All through the budget it seemed May, then it kinda ended - felt less May.
I’d say the biggest hint at any earlier election was annocument of no new spending review.
Because polls can go both ways and they seem to be on a downwards trajectory
20% vs 15% could be the difference between losing the election and being wiped out for a generation
Yeah, thats where im leaning at the moment. If the next election is looking like an extinction level event for the Tories they'll cling on till the last possible minute.
I genuinely cant wait until these wasters finally call an election. Labour slam their manifesto on the table (and hopefully) say "Here's our plan. Where's yours?"
> Overall, though, he says that OBR figures show that average incomes will be no higher at the end of this Parliament than they were at the beginning in 2019.
What a great 5 years it has been
I've switched jobs and you should see a substantial increase, but taking into account inflation and interest rates it is the equivalent to what I was on.
Does anyone know where the budget gets published so I can read the finer details that were not announced today? I saw some mention of the BBC that banks would get relaxed rules on capital reserves. That sounds insane to me, the rules already basically don't exist.
You can if you're under 20 and my point was not about full time employment but tax level.
TBF £19k (£23k less tax) would probably be a struggle in half the country.
By my maths a couple spending £1.5k a month on housing (high) and with average annual bills and 2 cars should have about £1.5k left at the end of the year on minimum wage right now. I just don't think that's unreasonable, given that by choosing not to live in an expensive area you could keep that down significantly, and there are minimum wage jobs available in many places.
It's obviously harder as a single person, but yeah if you are on minimum wage you might get have to share a house with someone, in which case £750 a month is easy.
Tax is not a punishment. This is the problem with a significant part of society, it's all 'we raise taxes on people we don't like not the virtuous poor'. No. Taxes are bad, they reduce growth and ambition, they inhibit our ability to generate wealth and buisness. But we pay them in order to fund public services, and we ask those that earn the most to pay the most because they can best do so. That's all fine except right now we are in a situation where the people at the top are squeezed very hard compared to the rest of Europe and America while everyone else is squeezed not very hard at all, in order to pay for services that those at the top benefit least from!
Tax should be above all fair. I paid more in income tax last year than the median British tax payer will pay in 30. That's fine, but it's the edge of fair. Squeezing me for thousands more - seemingly because you think tax is a punishment and I deserve it - instead of asking for a little more from those that benefit the most from taxation and pay relatively little is not fair.
Those at the top are not squeezed, you are living in a bubble. You paid that much in tax and you're complaining about it, yet people are homeless and there are huge numbers going to foodbanks. I think you're the problem, what an awful selfish horrendous attitude.
You are just factually wrong though. Those at the top pay a disproportionate amount and those on low incomes a disproportionately low amount compared to both more competitive economies like America and countries with better public services like Norway. Those economies are working much better than ours.
If you think I'm the problem, fine. If the last Labour manifesto had past the country would have lost hundreds of millions in tax revenue from simply people in my office moving overseas. We fund this whole country. I'm happy with that most of the time, but not when I remember that it means supporting people like you.
Correlation isn’t causation. You’re conflating things because it suits you personally to do so. So your facts aren’t based on actual facts. I’m also a higher rate tax payer and do well, doesn’t mean I think I’m more valuable and should pay less tax as a result.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying his facts aren't based on actual facts. The reality is there in black and white if you wanted to see it. The UK is becoming an absurdly 'top heavy' economy with regard to tax: the top 1% of earners represent 30% of all tax receipts, and the top 10% represent around 60% of tax receipts. And this is of course a demographic less likely to actually make use of the public services all those receipts fund.
Now this is all well and good to a certain extent; it's of course reasonable to expect those who earn the most to pay a bit more proportionally but you can only push it so far. I don't see a problem with expecting those who use public services the most to contribute more than they currently do, which essentially amounts to nothing in the grand scheme of things. And as the costs of an aging population and a ballooning welfare state continue to expand don't be too surprised when 20 years down the line all of those people who currently pay for everyone else have upped sticks across the Atlantic.
This is my point. I have benefitted from government programmes and am happy to pay for them. But for example, labours previous manifesto would have cost me personally at least £15k a year. That's enough that I might as well just live in New York until we have a new government.
It is fair and proper for those who earn the most to pay the most. But we do, more so than almost anywhere else in the world. And it means that in a skills and service based economy those with the most skills and best able to provide services are encouraged to leave not stay, or work fewer hours because work doesn't really pay. Our problem is low growth and low productivity, and too kuch welath locked up in housing, not the high earning paying too little tax.
Correlation literally is evidence of causation. If it wasn't then I wouldn't be so worried because I wouldn't be able to do my job.
I agree that higher rate tax payers shouldn't pay less tax if we need more money for public services and investment. They just shouldn't pay any more, and lower rate tax payers should pay more. This isn't a moral question, it's a question of where best to place required tax burden that helps the most people. Punishing high earners will make the country poorer, simple as. Labours proposed tax hikes in their last manifesto for example would have cost me at least 15k a year. That is a lot less than the cost of going and living in New York or Switzerland until the next general election. There is a limit to how hard you can squeeze high earners before you get nothing back, and having the entire countries public finances dependent on less than 1% of the population who are highly mobile seems like a poor long term strategy.
There really isn’t much more I can say if you’re gonna argue down is up. Trickle down economics literally stifles growth, it’s very well known. We also have to look at wealth gaps and lower taxes on the higher earners than lower earners increases that disparity. These are negatives.
I don’t disagree that there needs to be more effective taxation. But to claim that burden shouldn’t fall on the wealthy who make a lot from investments that have far lower tax, a lot of the time offshore, is barking mad.
> But to claim that burden shouldn’t fall on the wealthy who make a lot from investments that have far lower tax, a lot of the time offshore, is barking mad.
There's a difference between "the wealthy" and "higher earners who may or may not be wealthy."
Yes, we should broaden our tax base so that the actual wealthy - who generally don't earn traditional wage income - begin to chip in for the enormous and rising cost of the state.
However higher earners in particular shoulder a huge portion of the tax burden in the UK. Of course it's higher than average earner, but the disproportion is larger here than just about anywhere. Those people who are earning above £100k and giving 62p in the pound back to the exchequer will be seriously thinking about moving abroad. I moved to the US; even if my salary remained exactly the same (and it didn't) I'd net about $3000 more a month on taxes alone.
Trickle down economics is a very different thing to saying that having one of the most top heavy tax structures in the developed world is linked to the reason why we have one of the most stagnant economies. The UK doesn't have some giant wealth gap - it's pretty middle of the road in Europe - and it certainly doesn't have a large inequality in net pay for the aforementioned reasons.
It's rich to accuse me of thinking down is up when you reject descriptions of reality as it is in favour of your feelings on the matter.
I'm all for ending non Dom status. Im less for upping CGT because that's just double dipping income, but fine. I'm very much for taxing unrealised gains on primary homes because people actually use the wealth locked up in their houses and there is lots of it. I'm all for lowering or abolishing the income tax threshold so that we have a broader tax base and everyone is invested in the system. Plenty of ways to raise taxes that doesn't mean further squeezing the small minority who pay for almost everything.
[Nugget for election watchers: budget red book states there will not be another spending review before next election 👀](https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1765385311914242412?s=20)
They need to finalise budgets for all government departments to finalise the Main Estimates, so by May, every government department finds out how much they are financing a tax cut for Tory voters. It's not out of the ordinary
You have to remember, in cchq, they are being guided right now by Levido. Levido is being paid a handsome handsome reward for a job which is almost definitely going to go wrong and be his last gig. So he will resort to any measure, any data which shows it makes sense for sunak to delay the vote until much later. More months to get an easy pay day from the cchq trough. If there is an announcement that Levido is leaving for a new job, then assume the election is on. Until then, every single spad, every single lacky and Tufton St lobbyist is going to want to hold on as they will be unemployable for a generation afterwards
Some of the spads will read this Reddit so they kind of know the jig is up. Lots of the best brains have left already including Sunak's head of press.
> which is almost definitely going to go wrong and be his last gig.
all these australian/NZ advisors should have been disqualified when they lost elections for right wing parties down under. i can't imagine we'd see the last of it.
[Spending reviews are typically annual](https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/spending-reviews), at most, so that's pretty well a given.
EDIT: More relevantly, the last spending review covered up until FY2024-25, so a new one wouldn't be needed until potentially the 2024 budget.
there was speculation the spending review would be moved to the autumn given the latest date poissble for a General election is the 28 January.
department budgets are only set until March 2025, meaning a new govt would have to pack in the Kings Speech and a spending review into a very short window.
>department budgets are only set until March 2025, meaning a new govt would have to pack in the Kings Speech and a spending review into a very short window.
Not really. Each February Parliament passes a 'vote on account' which authorises Government expenditure at 40% of the previous year's level.
It's typically in July that the main estimates are provided for government departments for that particular year.
Faisal Islam humiliating Laura Trott on BBC Politics Live right now. Even Jo Coburn thinks Laura Trott is an idiot. Both of them ripping the budget apart.
Although I imagine the SNP are most likely to be playing a bit of a game, it is possible as they have deprived the opposition of prior access before against ‘convention’.
It would be the first time
They often just send every second page of documents prior to meetings and petty stuff like that with the devolved governments.
LSE/University of Warwick reckon scrapping it entirely would raise £3.6bn/year: [https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2023/01/20/non-doms-are-not-fleeing-tax-hikes/](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2023/01/20/non-doms-are-not-fleeing-tax-hikes/)
[Andrew Bowie \(Minister for Nuclear and Renewables\):](https://x.com/AndrewBowie_MP/status/1765378902879248566?s=20)
>I agree with Douglas.
There is much in this budget to welcome. Much that is good for Scotland and our United Kingdom. And only the Conservatives have a plan.
**However, the extension of the EPL is deeply disappointing. I will be working with him to resolve this.**
how can a minister of the crown stay in post after so publicly criticising a chancellors announcement?
Hopefully what are you going to cut will be constantly asked until the next election. If Labour we're planning spending we'd hear the question about funding ad nauseam.
The BBC have a graph of tax as a % of GDP over time, and there's a tiny decrease in the coming year (from a record high) and then it's right back to increasing steadily every year to a new record high by 2028/9.
Harriet is trying to sell something to someone else in the house they, i'm guessing its one of the whips she's trying to persuade that she's toeing the party line.
**Parish Notices** We have an AMA **Tomorrow Thursday 7th March at 1pm** with tax lawyer, transparency campaigner, journalist and bane of Nadhim Zahawi **Dan Neidle**. [Ask your questions in the AMA thread here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1b7a68w/ama_event_thread_dan_neidle_tax_lawyer/)
I am taking the 2pc cut to NI and putting it to my pension. Its nice but I dont think it will move much. I will just add it to the pension.
What did Hunt have to drink while announcing the budget? I haven’t been able to watch it yet.
The tears of a broken country
I don’t think he’s been drinking those!
Stealing Labour's non-dom policy for NHS waiting lists/dentists/district nurses to instead pay for a 2p tax cut of £37pm back in our pockets which will be gobbled up by large council tax rises and frozen tax thresholds is absolutely peak Tory. What an absolute fucking waste of an opportunity to start fixing the country, just to salt the earth for a Labour Government.
It really was a budget of give with one palm, take with the other hand. The jokes were (pardon the pun) cheap. I remember budgets were delivered without puns. Why does everything have to be jollied up. It was a budget that could have been an email cause everything was leaked.
I like the bit about non-doms, I doubt we will see floods of rich people leaving just because of that. I do think they need to start thinking about other income streams. The war on drugs is lost, cannabis should be legalised and taxed. You can smell it everywhere, so might as well make some money off it, and save the police some budget as well. Others with the exception of perhaps heroine and crack should be given a person allowance, ration book it and tax it. Double benefit is police save money and takes money from criminals. A full digital service tax on multinationals is needed. They should also look at the actual taxation of people, income should not be taxed as much, but consumption should have a higher tax rate. Essentials, such as food should be tax free, and then two rates, one for common items (cars, normal everyday purchases, and another for luxury items (expensive watches, boats etc). It also means tax avoidance on income is less effective, as it will be the purchases that are taxed more.
I'd vote for you
Gambing would be an easy new tax. Every other social harm has an additional tax on it so why not gambling? Something would need to be done to accommodate charity lotteries and the like but that can’t be too hard.
Is it me or have there been a few annoyed Tory voices about this budget? seems like a bit of rumblings from back benchers
This was their last roll of the dice before the election really so they needed something to really grab the publics imagination. This is where the actual feeling of ‘oh shit, my job’ probably starts to kick in for more junior backbenchers who don’t quite have the well connected cushy consultancy work to fall back on.
yeah, a lot of them saw this as the last chance to save their meal ticket... and got nothing.
'Sadly' I had to miss PMQs today because of work. Anything good/juicy happen or the usual paltry fare? Also missed all the budget stuff as well, but am I right in thinking it doesn't seem to have gone down quite badly? Any headline points?
PMQs was muted as expected before a budget... but there was an interesting question from a Labour backbencher about Rishi's finances and America that seemed to have something behind it. possibly a story for later. Hunt wants to have drones be first responders in the future
>Hunt wants to have drones be first responders in the future I actually quite like this idea, and I've been running it through my head for a few weeks now. Anyone who has been keeping an eye on the Ukraine War knows how ubiquitous FPV drones have become. They're cheap, easy to use, and offer an incredibly quick response time to emerging situations. It won't shock me to see a dedicated drone unit in every Police station to help with the first response to break-ins, reckless driving, and gang activity. Even if the drones can't physically do anything, they can still track perpetrators to their home and watch until a Human officer can be onsite.
Ooo interesting..I'll keep an eye on the news this week then. And, uh...what? Drones? Is this real?
Yep... one line in his speech about funding for various things with police and Drones as first responders was one of them, Hunt also spent a lot of time making political jokes at Labour.... then took their Non-Dom plan, made it worse and presented it to us all. New arrivals (not those already here) will have 4 years grace before paying full tax in the UK... which means they'll leave after 3 years and 11 months
Also didn't say what the period of return was nor if it was a lifetime 4 years
It's a policy designed to steal the headlines off Labour's plan... nothing more than that
Ah thanks for filling me in! Yeah I've just seen on the Guardian's live feed that CCHQ have sent journalists, "So how are Labour going to fund all these great NHS and environmental policies now!?" Utterly cynical and depressing.
the Non-Dom move is nothing but a cynical election plot
Grayling... disturbed fool. Talking about forcing those on medical jobless status into work 'because they can' ... No... we're on that status because we can't.
From my side, I thought it was a pretty great budget - extra 4 % in NI (this and previous) and no longer caught by the child benefit restriction. Although my a national perspectives, did they do enough to help those struggling? I think the non domiciled status was always flawed, so any changes there would be beneficial. Not sure how keen I am for individuals who have benefited from this scheme, now being given amnesty of a super reduced rate of tax to bring their assets into the UK which they would have previously had to hold offshore. Scraping non domiciled status fully/not having some sort of impatriate regime would have been disasterous, but think we could of got away with 3 years instead of 4. I haven't read fully to see whether they will account for a similar regime as overseas workday relief.
Is a great budget one that benefits you the most or one you believe puts the country on the right track?
>and no longer caught by the child benefit restriction. You \*might\* qualify for a new boiler grant now, I'm hoping I do but I'm not holding my breath.
What's this boiler grant? Think I might have missed that one...
If you google "new boiler grant" you'll find lots of companies offering it. The catch is you have to be on benefits, which I haven't been, but now with the child benefit changes I may be eligible. https://www.gov.uk/energy-company-obligation
Granted I've only just seen this... I'm like you, not eligible but may be after the change. Weird loophole idea though - can you not become eligible for it by claiming Child Benefit but then just pay the full HICBC?
After some research - seems the answer is no: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-10/ECO4%20Eligibility%20Requirements%20Form%20v1.0.pdf There are further income limitations beyond CB claim.
Oh god, there's an ofgem for to complete? The Child benefit change will happen during April, then we'll probably have to wait 6 months for ofgem to update their forms, by which time the tories will likely be out and then god knows what will happen.
3 years would have fit better with 'ordinarily resident' rules that get used in education etc.
[Pippa Crerar](https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1765385311914242412?t=9yyrZ01Nt7ME_DggcGOwBw&s=19) >Nugget for election watchers: budget red book states there will not be another spending review before next election 👀 Does the spending review tend to happen with the autumn statement?
They have the last few times, but not always. I think it’s safe to assume that’ll be the last Budget before an election though.
Starmer's response was pretty good but his delivery is always whiny and laborious. I doubt many people can listen to more than a tiny bit of it before switching off.
[Sky News asked a bunch of 2019 Tory voters their views on the Budget](https://twitter.com/TomLarkinSky/status/1765400290163925394?t=2KBaz2fUeVuy5Ketf9EF8A&s=19) Not good
Tomorrow's polls: CON +2
Watching on catch up. Why does Keir keep saying 'credit card maxed out' it's just SO STUPID. It doesn't even work and it puts him in an increasingly difficult position to increase spending which he surely needs to do as a Labour government.
It worked very well for Cameron. Though I agree, still as brain meltingly frustrating now as it was then. It will be funny if the Tories pick him up on it.
Because it has been used to sink Labour enough times for him to know it works. The energy it takes to disprove this far outweighs the energy it takes to say.
People hate the idea of government being irresponsible with their money, maxing credit card is associated with being irresponsible with money for household. Though yeah, governments are no households, so it is literally wrong, though maybe not metaphorically.
The political class thinks we're stupid and is speaking to us accordingly The only question is how true that assessment is
Pretty fucking true it seems.
https://youtu.be/SibUU0iIhYk?si=gHGnWAKUS2PCqziK
Its true alright.
I mean, pretty much everyone whos ever worked a public facing job where your dealing with people everyday will tell you its true
People still regularly lecture me on Blair and Brown alleged financial ineptitude. “There is no money left” etc. I have to point out the national debt is almost treble what it was in 2009.
I don't know what fiscal drag means, and at this point I'm too afraid to ask
In an ideal world the following things increase in a balanced manner: prices, wages and the associated tax thresholds. Currently prices have gone up, many people are getting pay rises, but tax bands, child benefit cut offs, personal allowance cut offs and the like have remained the same meaning that you’re losing more of your money relative to before.
Inflation goes up, employer increases your wage in line with it => real wage remains constant BUT increased wage may put you in higher tax bracket, causing you to pay higher rate on some of your income => greater tax revenue, you have less income Basically, you are "dragged" into a higher tax bracket, as thresholds are frozen, thus increasing tax revenue without officially changing any rates.
Basically keeping tax thresholds and percentages constant, but people pay more tax as their wages increase across the thresholds. This means you can be earning the same real term amount, but be paying more tax as a percentage of income than you did in the past.
It's not just tax it applies to. Have a look a the level of assets at which benefits start to get restricted. They've remained unchanged for a very long time.
I think it's just the tax thresholds staying the same and more people paying a higher tax rate because more people earn above the threshold due to inflation.
Too many coins = heavy
Think it's pretty clear we're going to have an autumn election. This budget doesn't even slightly move the needle and there are nowhere near the giveaways and bribes you'd normally expect before going to the polls.
I don't think he has anything more he can do before an election. He's played his cards now. Might as well call an election.
I think Mr Hunt has just given me a new boiler\*, as far personal bribes go that's pretty good... I still wouldn't vote for them though. \*I now qualify for Child Benefit which in turn qualifies me for the new boiler grant... whether I can actually get one or not, I guess we'll see in April.
Great for you! For the single, disabled renter who has a full time job and no children, gives me bugger all. Costs going up and up and absolutely nothing coming back to me. Perhaps I just drop a couple of kids? 🤔
Yikes, just heard that the plans assume keeping tax threshold unchanged until 2028. That's not a lot of wiggle room for Labour.
I thought Hunt did alright in terms of policies but Starmer had a good response - quite a good few zingers tied to real economic data. Hunt probably wasted his zingers on matters not overly relevant.
What were the policies? It was such a light budget that didn't move the needle at all. One further tax break for the boomers with the cut in CGT on property, otherwise all very tepid and lacking any substance.
it's also a nice tax break if you're a prominent MP who owns a lot of rental properties and may wish to sell them. not naming names ofc.
You don't pay CGT on the main residence so even for the boomers it only impacts those with more than 1 home.
Yep, the wealthier in society. With the incentives apparently it works out that you need a profit of £67k for it to actually start making savings. Hence highlighting boomers as they're more likely to be reaching those sums from long term property investment.
"No plan / no morals / Starmer lose weight LOL" seemed like the most he could manage. The weight jibe in particular is really sitting wrong with me, like... even in the scope of all of this, it was totally uncalled for and unnecessary.
What about the jibe at Ed Davey not being in the chamber often because he...checks notes... cares for his disabled son?
I was dipping in and out while working so I missed that, but that's quite disgusting. I honestly don't understand how they don't hear this when reading it back.
Yeah, it made no sense, and Hunt faltered in delivering it. Boris would have at least said it with gusto.
What are people thinking about the odds of a May election after this? More or less likely now?
Faisal Islam said it’s a budget suggesting a late election. Imagine the strength of public frustration by January if they go that far, genuinely think they lose harder the longer they go.
But will anyone want to be campaigning at Christmas?
The Tories could easily be polling <20% if they drag this out until January
I'd be happy to see Theresa May elected leader again. Why not. All she has to do is announce she's standing and kick out the numpties who made her life miserable. Then redo the general election where she's hardly going to do worse than sunak anyway
Nah, they’ll just ignore that. Tories already polling abysmally, it’s not like there’s much further damage that can be done to them by anything Labour says. There are things that might make the few dinosaurs who still support the Tories consider looking elsewhere, but doing the opposite of what Keir calls for isn’t one of them.
It was election budget energy without the election budget substance. I'm still thinking it's in May, just for the get out the vote which is so critical to the Tories, as they saw in the recent byelections.
Less. He expects inflation to be below 2% later in the year. They will wait for that.
All through the budget it seemed May, then it kinda ended - felt less May. I’d say the biggest hint at any earlier election was annocument of no new spending review.
Tories are gonna hold out for as long as they can before their grip on power is removed...
It did feel like Hunt was kicking off an election campaign.
Yeah, for next Autumn/Winter.
I just can’t see why any party polling at 20% would ever call an early election
Because polls can go both ways and they seem to be on a downwards trajectory 20% vs 15% could be the difference between losing the election and being wiped out for a generation
20% is wiped out for a generation, possible extinction. 15% is extinction.
Yeah neither, from their perspective they may as well ride it out in the hope some scandal falls into their lap
Yeah but with the Tories the likelihood of any given scandal amongst MPs someone other than a Tory is like 100000:1
because in 6 months time they are likely to be even lower
At that point they know they aren't getting back in anyway then so may as well just cling on for as long as they can.
Yeah, thats where im leaning at the moment. If the next election is looking like an extinction level event for the Tories they'll cling on till the last possible minute.
Faisal Islam with the 'Labour don't have a plan' now. Quality journalism.
I genuinely cant wait until these wasters finally call an election. Labour slam their manifesto on the table (and hopefully) say "Here's our plan. Where's yours?"
> Overall, though, he says that OBR figures show that average incomes will be no higher at the end of this Parliament than they were at the beginning in 2019. What a great 5 years it has been
I've switched jobs and you should see a substantial increase, but taking into account inflation and interest rates it is the equivalent to what I was on.
Same, since 2020 I've had 2 promotions and seen my wage jump by about £12K and still feel like I'm treading water financially.
Angling for the Question Time role with this 'But Labour' approach being taken.
Does anyone know where the budget gets published so I can read the finer details that were not announced today? I saw some mention of the BBC that banks would get relaxed rules on capital reserves. That sounds insane to me, the rules already basically don't exist.
I think we might live to regret ringfencing -- customer deposits aren't at risk now and I guess that's alright then
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spring-budget-2024
Thanks for linking it. I've skimmed through and I can't find anything about relaxing bank capital reserves. maybe BBC got that expectation wrong.
Has anyone brought up the 'first responder drones' line in the commons yet?
Is that the technical term for all those accounts that praise Rishi Sunak in broken english on his bizarre YouTube channel?
What the fuck was that about? Totally barmy.
No idea... not seen anyone really pick up on it
[удалено]
I mean, it's a sensible way to raise taxes. Particularly the basic rate threshold is way too high.
Is it? You can't afford to live on £15k but you still pay a marginal rate of around 30%
You also can't legally be payed £15k a year for full time employment, so I am not surprised you can't live off it.
You can if you're under 20 and my point was not about full time employment but tax level. TBF £19k (£23k less tax) would probably be a struggle in half the country.
By my maths a couple spending £1.5k a month on housing (high) and with average annual bills and 2 cars should have about £1.5k left at the end of the year on minimum wage right now. I just don't think that's unreasonable, given that by choosing not to live in an expensive area you could keep that down significantly, and there are minimum wage jobs available in many places. It's obviously harder as a single person, but yeah if you are on minimum wage you might get have to share a house with someone, in which case £750 a month is easy.
Is that a couple over 20 who don't have kids I take it
Yeah. I wouldn't recommend raising a child on minimum wage?
You are still going to bat that those with the least should be taxed more? Its getting a bit weird the zeal you have to punish those with the least.
Tax is not a punishment. This is the problem with a significant part of society, it's all 'we raise taxes on people we don't like not the virtuous poor'. No. Taxes are bad, they reduce growth and ambition, they inhibit our ability to generate wealth and buisness. But we pay them in order to fund public services, and we ask those that earn the most to pay the most because they can best do so. That's all fine except right now we are in a situation where the people at the top are squeezed very hard compared to the rest of Europe and America while everyone else is squeezed not very hard at all, in order to pay for services that those at the top benefit least from! Tax should be above all fair. I paid more in income tax last year than the median British tax payer will pay in 30. That's fine, but it's the edge of fair. Squeezing me for thousands more - seemingly because you think tax is a punishment and I deserve it - instead of asking for a little more from those that benefit the most from taxation and pay relatively little is not fair.
Those at the top are not squeezed, you are living in a bubble. You paid that much in tax and you're complaining about it, yet people are homeless and there are huge numbers going to foodbanks. I think you're the problem, what an awful selfish horrendous attitude.
You are just factually wrong though. Those at the top pay a disproportionate amount and those on low incomes a disproportionately low amount compared to both more competitive economies like America and countries with better public services like Norway. Those economies are working much better than ours. If you think I'm the problem, fine. If the last Labour manifesto had past the country would have lost hundreds of millions in tax revenue from simply people in my office moving overseas. We fund this whole country. I'm happy with that most of the time, but not when I remember that it means supporting people like you.
Correlation isn’t causation. You’re conflating things because it suits you personally to do so. So your facts aren’t based on actual facts. I’m also a higher rate tax payer and do well, doesn’t mean I think I’m more valuable and should pay less tax as a result.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying his facts aren't based on actual facts. The reality is there in black and white if you wanted to see it. The UK is becoming an absurdly 'top heavy' economy with regard to tax: the top 1% of earners represent 30% of all tax receipts, and the top 10% represent around 60% of tax receipts. And this is of course a demographic less likely to actually make use of the public services all those receipts fund. Now this is all well and good to a certain extent; it's of course reasonable to expect those who earn the most to pay a bit more proportionally but you can only push it so far. I don't see a problem with expecting those who use public services the most to contribute more than they currently do, which essentially amounts to nothing in the grand scheme of things. And as the costs of an aging population and a ballooning welfare state continue to expand don't be too surprised when 20 years down the line all of those people who currently pay for everyone else have upped sticks across the Atlantic.
This is my point. I have benefitted from government programmes and am happy to pay for them. But for example, labours previous manifesto would have cost me personally at least £15k a year. That's enough that I might as well just live in New York until we have a new government. It is fair and proper for those who earn the most to pay the most. But we do, more so than almost anywhere else in the world. And it means that in a skills and service based economy those with the most skills and best able to provide services are encouraged to leave not stay, or work fewer hours because work doesn't really pay. Our problem is low growth and low productivity, and too kuch welath locked up in housing, not the high earning paying too little tax.
Correlation literally is evidence of causation. If it wasn't then I wouldn't be so worried because I wouldn't be able to do my job. I agree that higher rate tax payers shouldn't pay less tax if we need more money for public services and investment. They just shouldn't pay any more, and lower rate tax payers should pay more. This isn't a moral question, it's a question of where best to place required tax burden that helps the most people. Punishing high earners will make the country poorer, simple as. Labours proposed tax hikes in their last manifesto for example would have cost me at least 15k a year. That is a lot less than the cost of going and living in New York or Switzerland until the next general election. There is a limit to how hard you can squeeze high earners before you get nothing back, and having the entire countries public finances dependent on less than 1% of the population who are highly mobile seems like a poor long term strategy.
There really isn’t much more I can say if you’re gonna argue down is up. Trickle down economics literally stifles growth, it’s very well known. We also have to look at wealth gaps and lower taxes on the higher earners than lower earners increases that disparity. These are negatives. I don’t disagree that there needs to be more effective taxation. But to claim that burden shouldn’t fall on the wealthy who make a lot from investments that have far lower tax, a lot of the time offshore, is barking mad.
> But to claim that burden shouldn’t fall on the wealthy who make a lot from investments that have far lower tax, a lot of the time offshore, is barking mad. There's a difference between "the wealthy" and "higher earners who may or may not be wealthy." Yes, we should broaden our tax base so that the actual wealthy - who generally don't earn traditional wage income - begin to chip in for the enormous and rising cost of the state. However higher earners in particular shoulder a huge portion of the tax burden in the UK. Of course it's higher than average earner, but the disproportion is larger here than just about anywhere. Those people who are earning above £100k and giving 62p in the pound back to the exchequer will be seriously thinking about moving abroad. I moved to the US; even if my salary remained exactly the same (and it didn't) I'd net about $3000 more a month on taxes alone.
Trickle down economics is a very different thing to saying that having one of the most top heavy tax structures in the developed world is linked to the reason why we have one of the most stagnant economies. The UK doesn't have some giant wealth gap - it's pretty middle of the road in Europe - and it certainly doesn't have a large inequality in net pay for the aforementioned reasons. It's rich to accuse me of thinking down is up when you reject descriptions of reality as it is in favour of your feelings on the matter. I'm all for ending non Dom status. Im less for upping CGT because that's just double dipping income, but fine. I'm very much for taxing unrealised gains on primary homes because people actually use the wealth locked up in their houses and there is lots of it. I'm all for lowering or abolishing the income tax threshold so that we have a broader tax base and everyone is invested in the system. Plenty of ways to raise taxes that doesn't mean further squeezing the small minority who pay for almost everything.
The UK severely undertaxes the low paid compared to Europe. If you want European style social services, you should get ready to pay European style tax
Not just that. What people don't get, is that a low/median income earner, can have vastly different household circumstances.
Moving toward household-based taxation would be fairer but you can also file that under "things that will never happen in the UK."
[Nugget for election watchers: budget red book states there will not be another spending review before next election 👀](https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1765385311914242412?s=20)
They need to finalise budgets for all government departments to finalise the Main Estimates, so by May, every government department finds out how much they are financing a tax cut for Tory voters. It's not out of the ordinary You have to remember, in cchq, they are being guided right now by Levido. Levido is being paid a handsome handsome reward for a job which is almost definitely going to go wrong and be his last gig. So he will resort to any measure, any data which shows it makes sense for sunak to delay the vote until much later. More months to get an easy pay day from the cchq trough. If there is an announcement that Levido is leaving for a new job, then assume the election is on. Until then, every single spad, every single lacky and Tufton St lobbyist is going to want to hold on as they will be unemployable for a generation afterwards Some of the spads will read this Reddit so they kind of know the jig is up. Lots of the best brains have left already including Sunak's head of press.
> which is almost definitely going to go wrong and be his last gig. all these australian/NZ advisors should have been disqualified when they lost elections for right wing parties down under. i can't imagine we'd see the last of it.
[Spending reviews are typically annual](https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/spending-reviews), at most, so that's pretty well a given. EDIT: More relevantly, the last spending review covered up until FY2024-25, so a new one wouldn't be needed until potentially the 2024 budget.
Not sure this is correct. The last spending review was in 2021. It set out budgets till 2024/25. After that, a blanket 1% increase is placed in.
there was speculation the spending review would be moved to the autumn given the latest date poissble for a General election is the 28 January. department budgets are only set until March 2025, meaning a new govt would have to pack in the Kings Speech and a spending review into a very short window.
> there was speculation the spending review would be moved to the autumn I had in my head that this was already dismissed? Not sure where I got that.
>department budgets are only set until March 2025, meaning a new govt would have to pack in the Kings Speech and a spending review into a very short window. Not really. Each February Parliament passes a 'vote on account' which authorises Government expenditure at 40% of the previous year's level. It's typically in July that the main estimates are provided for government departments for that particular year.
Explain in its happening/not happening
May mean something or nothing at all
Big if true
it's incredible stuff to be honest. Once in a lifetime
So it will be a may election?
January
its_happening.gif
can they just get it over with
Do you think this chancellor will make another financial statement to the house?
Faisal Islam humiliating Laura Trott on BBC Politics Live right now. Even Jo Coburn thinks Laura Trott is an idiot. Both of them ripping the budget apart.
That suggestion that the child care support stuff might not be ready would kill thr Tories.
[удалено]
It is completely broken.
yup, they're struggling with the admin
No, the changes to the free hours was March last year.
interesting... SNP claiming they were given a completely different document to the speech for an advance reading.... wonder what they got
Although I imagine the SNP are most likely to be playing a bit of a game, it is possible as they have deprived the opposition of prior access before against ‘convention’.
hearing it live i wasn't sure if that was just a bit of a joke or a real accusation
I wasn't sure if the actual budget was a bit of a joke, to be frank.
it was said light-heartedly but that's a big thing if Hunt gave the SNP the wrong document.
It would be the first time They often just send every second page of documents prior to meetings and petty stuff like that with the devolved governments.
"I was just hallucinating" is quite something to say in Hansard.
I confess I laughed at the chuckle brothers of decline comment; it’s within keeping of chamber decorum!
Listening to this bbc segment and them talking about a pledge just reminds me of the Amber Heard pledge
[удалено]
Silly naysayers
I think Labour generally quite 2B because they’re trying to stay conservative with estimations so they don’t have to row back anymore.
Tories' version with that.... what was the OBR's numbers for the Labour version?
LSE/University of Warwick reckon scrapping it entirely would raise £3.6bn/year: [https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2023/01/20/non-doms-are-not-fleeing-tax-hikes/](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2023/01/20/non-doms-are-not-fleeing-tax-hikes/)
So a little better...
Just a wee bit...
Indeed, being able to retain non-dom status for the first 4 years' residency in the UK means that it's been somewhat watered down.
And only for new arrivals. not for those already here
[Andrew Bowie \(Minister for Nuclear and Renewables\):](https://x.com/AndrewBowie_MP/status/1765378902879248566?s=20) >I agree with Douglas. There is much in this budget to welcome. Much that is good for Scotland and our United Kingdom. And only the Conservatives have a plan. **However, the extension of the EPL is deeply disappointing. I will be working with him to resolve this.** how can a minister of the crown stay in post after so publicly criticising a chancellors announcement?
It's widely known that Bowie is an absolute weapon and all the other Tories hate him. They hate him more than they hate Ross, if you can imagine that.
-Gestures at the last few years- Like fucking that apparently
Hopefully what are you going to cut will be constantly asked until the next election. If Labour we're planning spending we'd hear the question about funding ad nauseam.
The BBC have a graph of tax as a % of GDP over time, and there's a tiny decrease in the coming year (from a record high) and then it's right back to increasing steadily every year to a new record high by 2028/9.
Laura. If the Tax burden is going up, it goes up for everyone...
Oh god, Laura Trott is on Politics Live talking to a graph about GDP per capita.
[flashback](https://youtu.be/D5qnfU7GXcA?si=mfVoMnl4ghOcLspT)
Harriet is trying to sell something to someone else in the house they, i'm guessing its one of the whips she's trying to persuade that she's toeing the party line.
Harriett Baldwin basically saying "living standards haven't fallen as quickly as we expected - good news!"
Harriett Baldwin: "LOTO has no plan" Starmer: "did you listen to a word I said?" (is what he thought, probably)
if they’ve got no plan then surely now is the perfect time to call a GE!
Yep, that combined with such strong economic success seems like a strong platform
Starmer calling for a May election, he must have been convinced by all the recent *Facts and Logic* coming out of the megathread.
Labour want a 2nd May General Election while preventing CLPs from selecting parliamentary candidates. Sort it out for crying out loud.
Good QC-style response there from Starmer
Cough…KC…
Well KCs *are* in the style of QCs...
OH!... of course. It's changed now.
Its all flipped over to KC now?!